In Evens v. Shiawasee Co Rd Comm, 463 Mich 143; 615 NW2d 702 (2000), the Court first stated that the county road commission's duty, imposed by MCL 691.1402(1); MSA 3.996(102)(1), is only to repair and maintain the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel. More specifically, the Court held: The state and county roadcommissions' duty, under the highway exception, is only implicated upon their failure to repair or maintain the actual physical structure of the roadbed surface, paved or unpaved, designed for vehicular travel, which in turn proximately causes injury or damage. . . . A plaintiff making a claim of inadequate signage, like a plaintiff making a claim of inadequate street lighting or vegetation obstruction, fails to plead in avoidance of governmental immunity because signs are not within the paved or unpaved portion of the roadbed designed for vehicular travel. Traffic device claims, such as inadequacy of traffic signs, simply do not involve a dangerous or defective condition in the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel. Id. at 183-184.